Generic programming in C.

[Ian Collins]

Good god. I sure hope we never end up in the same company coding in a
project together. I'd strangle you for the above, promised.

You'd have to join a (long) queue...

 

[Guest]

That's absurd - half a century of software engineering practice
clearly shows that catching an error at runtime is hugely more costly
than catching it at compile time. Of course not all errors can be
caught at compile time, but if possible, it's *far* better to do so,
and type safety helps with that a great deal.

try that one on comp.lang.lisp
people will argue that since complete compile type correctness is impossible to acheive it isn'tworth doing it at all. That tagging values with type at runtime is a more complete check. Though I'll argue either end of almost any argument (found abandoned in the wild and raised by lawyers) I'm not quite up to that one. Worth a go though...

 

[Rod Pemberton]

Some people never learn, or maybe never stop trolling?

Apparently, over the many years he has posted assembly to c.l.c., you
*never* read *any* of his assembly code. If so, you'd know his preference
for extreme terseness. I.e., that #define should not be a shock to you in
the least.

He wrote his own assembly language. It's syntax is so terse, sparse, or
compact that even skilled assembly programmers can't understand it. It's
too cryptic.

It's like some of the obscure languages described here:
http://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page


Rod Pemberton

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Good god. I sure hope we never end up in the same company coding in a
project together.

I do not suspect that io_x is employable.

 

[Ian Collins]

Apparently, over the many years he has posted assembly to c.l.c., you
*never* read *any* of his assembly code. If so, you'd know his preference
for extreme terseness. I.e., that #define should not be a shock to you in
the least.

I also stop reading its C as soon as I see those ridiculous defines.

 

[Harry Vaderchi]

Apparently, over the many years he has posted assembly to c.l.c., you
*never* read *any* of his assembly code. If so, you'd know his
preference
for extreme terseness. I.e., that #define should not be a shock to you
in
the least.

He wrote his own assembly language. It's syntax is so terse, sparse, or
compact that even skilled assembly programmers can't understand it. It's
too cryptic.

I'm not skilled, but I did read one once!; It was for the maze solving
Hugi compo
(the last one ever?) 2009.

 

[Ian Collins]

do you like the OOP version...

/*
#define uns unsigned

Is io_x a gibberish generating automaton?

 

[James Kuyper]

On 05/28/12 09:26 PM, io_x wrote: ....d

Is io_x a gibberish generating automaton?

If not, he's doing a good imitation of one.

 

[Rui Maciel]

Is io_x a gibberish generating automaton?

Maybe he is a sock puppet of Mark V Shaney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V_Shaney


Rui Maciel

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

In order to avoid unnecessary sexism or speciesism, use s/he/it,
which is, of course, pronounced "shit".

You thought this putrid pearl amusing enough to reply to a four month
old message?

 

[James Kuyper]

On 09/14/2012 04:50 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
[Unatrributed text from a message that I wrote a couple of months ago.]

I've told you this before (2011-03-30, 2011-10-18, 2012-03-12, and
2012-03-14), but apparently I need to remind you again. Permission to
quote any part of any message I post, without proper attribution, is denied.

 

[Keith Thompson]

On 09/14/2012 04:50 PM, Gordon Burditt wrote:
[Unatrributed text from a message that I wrote a couple of months ago.]

I've told you this before (2011-03-30, 2011-10-18, 2012-03-12, and
2012-03-14), but apparently I need to remind you again. Permission to
quote any part of any message I post, without proper attribution, is denied.

And Gordon, you could completely address all the concerns you say
you have with attribution lines simply by changing the content of
your attribution message to something like:

So-and-so <[email protected]> appears to have written:

or


or some wording of your choice. It would neatly solve the problem
you claim to have and save you the effort of keeping track of who
has denied you permission to quote their words without attribution.
I can only assume that you have some other reason that you haven't
chosen to tell us about.